Sunday, 17 July 2016

For those not fluent in German, my translation follows. Highlights are my additions. [Square brackets contain my own comments.] They are not part of May's review:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Itprobablybelongs to the essence of each discovery," saysRádlin his history ofbiological theories, "that it struggles for recognition; it forces its wearer to inform you, to fight for them and not infrequently also to suffer. Thousands of ideas struggle for recognition; but most founder in the souls of the absent-minded listening world. The historian must not close his eyes to this fact; he must seek the truth not only to the throne of public recognition, but whereverpeople think. Through a game of coincidences, an idea is off and on promoted or suppressed; the historian should not be bribed by this, because his goal is to recognize ideas and not to describe the glory ofthe world. Even if a discovery sank without a trace in the hasslesof opinions, itdoes not therefore cease to form the subject of historiography."These words encourage me to renew the memory of a man, whoseidea did not go down without a trace, but was disregarded for almost thirty years, before it was awakened by another, larger, to actual life. On April 10, 1860 Darwin wrote to Lyell:"In last Saturday Gardeners’ Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews
publishes long extract from his work on “Naval Timber &
Arboriculture” published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely
anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection.—12
I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but
it, is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case
someday. Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a
work on “Naval Timber”." And three days later he wrote to Hooker:"Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I shd. esteem it a great favour if you would read enclosed. If you think it proper that I shd. send
it (& of this there can hardly be question) & if you think it
full & ample enough, please alter date to day on which you post it
& let that be soon.— The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.— If you object to
my letter please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I
thought that you would not object to run your eye over it." On April 21, 1860 "Gardeners Chronicle" brought the following letterDarwin:"I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in
the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr.
Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have
offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I
think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently
any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views, considering how
briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work
on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my
apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication. If
another edition of my work is called for, I will insert a notice to the
foregoing effect."

[Interestingly, May translated the word "naturalist" used by Darwin above as "Naturforscher" into German. Naturforscher, however, means natural scientist or researcher or explorer. Thus May explicated a connotation of the term naturalist in Darwin's use above, that is easily lost in English.]According to Francis Darwin, Matthew was not satisfied by this explanation and complained in November 1860, that an article in the "Saturday Analyst and Leader" was hardly fair in calling Darwin the fatherof the theory of natural selection, because he himself had published all thatDarwintriedto prove more than 29 years ago.Darwin also recognized Matthew's claims unreservedly in a letter to Quatrefages of 25 April 1861. "I have," he writes there, "lately read M. Naudin’s paper; but it does not seem to me to
anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under
nature;
but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most
expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so
briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in
his book."Later Darwin found that even Matthew had a predecessor still. "Talking about the Origin," he wrote to Hooker in October 1865, "a Yankee has called my attention to a paper attached to Dr Well’s famous Essay on Dew, which was read in 1813 to Royal Soc. but not printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of N. Selection to the races of man.—So poor old Patrick Matthew, is not the first, & he cannot or ought
not any longer put on his Title pages “Discoverer of the principle of
Natural Selection”!"In the historical sketch, that Darwin prefixed to the later editions of his "Origin of Species," he appreciates the Matthew's merits as follows:
"In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,'
in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently
to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,'
and as that enlarged in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given
by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an appendix to a work on
a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself
drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860. The
differences of Mr. Matthew's view from mine are not much importance: he seems
to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and
then re-stocked; and he gives as an alternative, that new forms may be generated
"without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates."
I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes
much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw,
however, the full force of the principle of natural selection."Inthe same historical sketch Darwin says about Owen'spriorityclaims: "As far as the mere enunciation of the principle of natural
selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether or not professor Owen
preceded me, for both of us, as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago
preceded by Dr Wells and Mr. Matthews."Besides thesejudgments by Darwin of Matthew, I only know of two further in the Darwinian literature. Regarding Darwin's remarks on Matthew in the historical sketch, Samuel Butler wrote, in his book "Evolution, Old & New," in 1879: "Nothing could well be more misleading. If Mr. Matthew's view of the
origin of species is "precisely the same as that" propounded by Mr.
Darwin, it is hard to see how Mr. Darwin can call those of Lamarck and
Dr. Erasmus Darwin "erroneous"; for Mr. Matthew's is nothing but an
excellent and well-digested summary of the conclusions arrived at by
these two writers and by Buffon. If, again, Mr. Darwin is correct in
saying that Mr. Matthew "clearly saw the full force of the principle of
natural selection," he condemns the view he has himself taken of it in
his 'Origin of Species,' for Mr. Darwin has assigned a far more
important and very different effect to the fact that the fittest
commonly survive in the struggle for existence, than Mr. Matthew has
done. Mr. Matthew sees a cause underlying all variations; he takes the
most teleological or purposive view of organism that has been taken by
any writer (not a theologian) except myself, while Mr. Darwin's view, if
not the least teleological, is certainly nearly so, and his confession
of inability to detect any general cause underlying variations, leaves,
as will appear presently, less than common room for ambiguity."Contrary to Butler and agreeing with Darwin, Grant Allen called Patrick Matthew the unconscious discoverer of the principle of natural selection in his Darwin Biography (1888), who applied the selection idea, in his book on naval timber, to the whole of nature, sometimes with the same words as Darwin."I was led to concern myself with Matthew and his work through an external circumstance. Prof. Dr. P. Unna in Hamburg sent me, on the occasion of the Darwin anniversary in 1909, a letter of the Hamburg pastor, Dr. H. F. Beneke, whose uncle Alexander Matthew (died on 18 January 1911 at the age of 90) was the son of Patrick Matthews. This letter alluded to the priority of Matthew. I then askedthe Pastor Beneke for the book and for some biographical notes about his great uncle and received both in amiable manner. Here are the biographical data: "Patrick Matthew, born October 20, 1790, died June 8, 1874, married his cousin Christian Nicol (born December 21, 1791, died October 28, 1857). Both their mothers were sisters, born Duncan. From the Duncans he inherited the Gourdie Hill property, actually with the condition to take the name Duncan, what he did not. (The land is now no longer in the family). We also know the names of his parents John MatthewandAgnesDuncanandhis grandparents Patrick Matthew in the Rome property on Tay and Helen Millar Broambrae from Fife, but do not have dates for them.He must have married about 1819, as the eldest son Robert was born in 1820 and my uncle in 1821. He firstmanaged both Rome and Gourdie Hill, laterthe latteralone. His picture, as an old man, shows beautiful, noble and pleasant features.According to family tradition, the Matthews are from a sister of Robert Bruce, and they are proud to have very square chin, as R. Bruce used to have; but that will of course be treated more jokingly."The work on which Patrick Matthew based his priority claims against Darwin, bears the title: "On naval timber and arboriculture:; with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting.' It is published by Adam Black, Edinburg; Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London, and published in 1831. The content includes XVIand391 big octavo pages and is organized as follows:

[list of contents omitted]

Matthews book is imbued with the patriotic spirit of the Englishman, who desires world domination of his nation. The means to this is for him the seafaring. In
the introduction, he noted that the seafaring was of the greatest importance
for the improvement of the species, naval superiority almost synonymous
with universal dominion, the mainland only the footstool of the
mistress of the seas. The periodic recurrence of war seems to him indispensable for the heroic, chivalrous character and the love of freedom. Conflict and fighting should rub the rust from the customs and
institutions of his people, the ennobling appeal of danger should arouse the
noble passions and the youth be led to emulate the Romans in patriotic
thirst for fame, the Spartans in devotion, their own ancestor in bold bravery. Without seeking war, but in preparation to face an enemy, in perhaps not so distant a time, England should maintain its military virtues without malignant
sentimentality, especially that which must
make up the field of his fame, his navy and their building materials, naval timber.Here, it is already indicated that the struggle among nations serves their refinement, but withoutpronouncing the principle of selection.

[May skipped the second part, probably because it is about ship-building and contains no passage relevant to natural selection.]

In the third part of the book artificial selection is an issue and natural selection is also hinted at. Since
the luxuriance and size of timber is highly dependent on the peculiar
variety of species, on the treatment of the seed prior to sowing, and
on the treatment of the young plant, and since this fundamental issue is neither
much appreciated nor widely understood, Matthew wants to discuss it from scratch. He
speaks of the consequences of our lamentable ignorance of the most
undeniable facts of natural history: that both the
plants and the animals are subjected to an almost unlimited variability in general, due to
the climate, the soil, the food and new blending of already formed
varieties. In
such species, with which man is very familiar, he had become acquainted
with these facts, that is, in man himself, the dog, horse, cattle, sheep, poultry,
apple, pear, plum, gooseberry, potato and pea, that feature endless varieties, by differing considerably in size, color, taste,
firmness of texture, growing season and any recognizable property. In
all these species, man seeks to avoid deterioration by careful selection of the
biggest and most valuable for further growth, but with timber
trees, the inverse procedure was followed. The
tall-growing varieties were often cut off prematurely, because of their late seed
production, small-growing and weak varieties,
in which seed production takes place early and abundantly, on the other hand,
had constantly been selected to reproduce because of the ease and convenience
with which seeds can be obtained. "May
we, then, wonder," asks Matthew, "that our plantations are occupied by a
sickly short-lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where t
heir own kind had formerly flourished—particularly evinced in the genus
Pinus, more particularly in the
species Scots fir; so much inferior to those of Nature's own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy, soil-suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?"This last sentence clearly stated that a selection takes place in nature, leading to the perfection of the race, but the emergence of new species by natural selectionisnotalleged here.Matthew demands that the farmer gives as much attention to the breeding of his forest trees as to that of his horses, cows and sheep, that he only sows seeds collected from the largest, healthiest and most lavishly growing trees and desists from sowing seeds of precocious or even of the very old and overripe trees, because, by analogy with animals, a weak and early decaying progeny is to be expected from them.In
the fourth part of his book Matthew says that the benefit of endless seed varieties in the families of plants, even those under
nature, probably lies in the fact that one individual (the strongest and
best circumstances suited) gains the superiority over others, surpassing and suppressing them, creating
space for its full extension and thus at the same time accomplishing a consistent
selection of the strongest, best adapted to
reproduce. The
intervention of man has increased the diversity of varieties, regardless of the new conditions to which
he introduced them, by preventing the natural process of
selection among the plants, particularly in
the more domesticated species, and even in man himself the greater
equality and larger strength of the wild tribes
can be ascribed to a similar law of selection, in which the weaker individual perishes under the poor
treatment on the part of the stronger or from general depression.Again, natural selection is considered only as a means of racial improvement and not as a cause of the emergence of new species.Matthew clearly expressed the principle of natural selection
as an adapting and perfecting principle in Note B of the Appendix
,"There is," he says here, "a law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition that its kind, or that organized matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the the physical and mental or instinctive powers, to their highest perfection, and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in his swiftness, and the fox in his wiles. As Nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence."Matthew
continues this discourse with an argument against hereditary nobility and the law of entail, which appears to him as a mockery of the law of selection,
that nature will not let unavenged. He
referred to the role of hereditary nobility played in France, the Iberian and Italian peninsula and
the Italian islands, and calls on the
apologists of the hereditary nobility, primogeniture and the law of entail to say what these countries could have been without the corrupting influence of these
unnatural morals. He sees intermittent mixing of the nobility with the people as the only way to protect those against degeneration. In
some countries, this mixing would not be necessary as often as as in
others, and Britain could be considered as the ground on which the nobility can
remain unspoiled the longest. Approaching the equator, however, the renewal would often be necessary,
except in high altitudes, in many places every third generation. The
repeal of the law of inheritance and primogeniture would increase not
only the happiness of the owner in the present state of civilization,
increase mortality and give the social order greater strength, but also
give the hard work and progress a general incentive whereby the living
conditions of the working class would be improved.Even Darwin has called primogeniture a means that was contrary to the action of natural selection. "Our aristocracy," he once wrote to Wallace, "is handsomer (more hideous according to a Chinese or Negro) than middle classes from pick of women; but oh what a scheme is primogeniture for destroying N. Selection." Andin the fifthchapter ofthe "Descent of Man" he discussed the deleterious effects of this system in greater detail, but without neglecting the balancing factors." In note C of the Appendix, Matthew examines the causes which have brought about the superiority of a part of the Caucasian race. He finds them mainly in repeated change of place under favorable circumstances. "There are few countries," he says, "where the old breed has not again and again sunk before the vigour of new immigration; we even see the worn out breed, chased from their homes to new location, return, after a time, superior to their former vanquishers, or gradually work their way back in peace, by superior subsisting power: this is visible in France, where the aboriginal sallow Kelt, distinguished by high satyr-like feature, deep-placed sparkling brown or grey eye, narrowed lower part of the face, short erect vertebral column, great mental acuteness, and restless vivacity, has emerged from the holes of the earth, the recesses of the forests and wastes, into which it had been swept before the more powerful blue-eyed Caucasian; and being a smaller, more easily subsisting animal, has, by starving and eating out, been gradually undermining the breed of its former conquerors." But
even more than the change of location the related circumstances
have their share in the perfection of the species. In the unrest that accompanied
the emigration, the varieties strongest in mind and body take over the leader role, impressing their character onto the people at large and constituting the
reproductive part, while the weaker varieties generally perish at
the occasional hardships. When
a cohort emigrates from a community, it will generally consist of the
bolder and brisked spirits, who will use the right of the conquerors to connect with the best of the natives that they
overwhelm; their
choice among these will be determined by personal characteristics and
not by the accidental circumstances of wealth or high birth—a
consideration which leads to the degradation of the race and one of the
reasons, why the nobility of Europe is so inferior in comparison with the
Asian. Again, selection is only recognized as a means of racial improvement.In note D Matthew repeats the thought, already indicated in the introduction, that national power and size is impossible without the operation of the egotistical drives. Our milder manners, our benevolence our tranquility, kindness and sense of refinement our sweet dreams of peace and joy, he calls a negative weight in the scales of national strength. The stronger excitation of hatred, ambition, pride, patriotism and more selfish passions, he deems necessary for the full and strong development of national energy. That Britain had impressed its ability and morality to a considerable extent onto the world, is due to the fact that it first ravaged these countrieswith fire and sword.These words remind us of the consequences that have drawn some modern racial theorists and many anti-darwinian ethicists from Darwinism.

[May skipped the end-notes E and F of the appendix. Note E was on the improper calculation of register tonnage of trading vessels leading to ill constructions of the vessels, in order to safe charges for lights, harbours and other dues. Note F was on the geological history of the North Sea, which Matthew called the German Ocean. Next May refers to a "long epilogue." This is actually
a colophon following after the end of Note F and a horizontal line indicating this. Whereas footnotes in the main text refer to the end-notes A-F of the
appendix, the main text contains no reference to this colophon suggesting that it was an afterthought.]

Matthew
concludes his work with a long epilogue, in which he set out his
understanding of the evolution of organic life on Earth. Only here, he regarded natural selection not only as a means of racial
improvement and adaptation, but also as a cause of the origin of new
species and the organic development at all. He
speaks, first, of a power of change under a change of circumstances,
which belongs to the living substance, or rather the hodgepodge of low
life, which seems to form the higher, and that one must admit, if one
does not want to accept a repeated wonderful creation.The
changes that have happened as a result of human intervention with the domestic animals
and crops before him, and the likelihood that the living conditions were
very different in the various geological periods, but consistent
within each, seem to prove to himthe accuracy of the assumption that, at
the beginning of each
new age [meaning geological eras between catastrophes], no creation took place, but some organisms surviving from the
former age have, again, adapted their existence over time to the change of circumstances and to every possible kind of living
conditions. "Is the inference, then, unphilosophic," he asks, in consideration of the
large chemical changes of the water and the atmosphere, "that living
things, which are proved to have a circumstance-suiting power—a very slight change of circumstances by inducing a corresponding change of character—may have
gradually accommodated themselves to the variations of the elements containing them, and, without new creation, have presented the diverging changeable phenomena of past and present organized existence."Matthew evidently connects in his somewhat vague hypothesis the doctrine of catastrophism with the theory of evolution. He
believes that the destructive liquid streams, which separated the ages and destroyed almost all living things, reducing being so much, that an unoccupied field got available for new diverging branches of life adapting itself to the new conditions and then, after
completion of this adjustment, remained constant for the duration of their existence,
except for the few residues that reached alive into the next following
period. Besides
this theory of evolution and the doctrine of creation there is, according to Matthew,
only one alternative explanation of organic changes, namely the assumption of
an "indestructible or molecular life, gradually uniting and developing itself into new
circumstance-suited living aggregates, without the presence of any
mould or
germ of former aggregates," which probably means the re-emergence of life by spontaneous generation, which Matthew distinguishes from new creation only by the fact that it "forms a portion of a continued scheme or system."Thus, Matthew has taken his position concerning the three possible hypotheses of biogenesis, on creation, on spontaneous generation and on evolution, and he opted for the theory of evolution; but it can hardly be called an advance over the earlier development theorists such as Buffon, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck, when he connects it to the doctrine of catastrophism.Far more important than the views of Matthews on organic change in general are his ideas about the causes of these changes. Here he raises the following question: "Do they arise from admixture of species nearly allied producing intermediate species? Are they thediverging ramifications of the living principle under modification of circumstance? Or have they resulted from the combined agency of both? Is there only one living principle? Does organized existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one Proteus principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations?"Matthew cannot accept that much of the changes in the organisms is owed to the mixing of closely related species, since all change is very limited by this, and limited in the circle of what is called species. He sees the main cause of change in the self-regulating adaptability of organisms, which he ascribes, at least partially, to the immense fertility of nature."Nature, who, as before stated, has, in all the varieties of her offspring," he says, "a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the weaker, less circumstance-suited, being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action, it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals of each species, whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection
from enemies, or defence from vicissitude and inclemencies of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies to self-advantage according to circumstances—in such immense waste of primary and youthful life, those only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which
Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.
From the unremitting operation of this law acting in concert with the tendency which the progeny have to take the more particular qualities of the parents, together with the connected sexual system in vegetables, and instinctive limitation to its own kind in animals, a considerable uniformity of figure, colour, and character, is induced, constituting species; the breed gradually acquiring the very best possible adaptation of these to its condition which it is susceptible of, and when alteration of circumstance occurs, thus changing in character to suit these as far as its nature is susceptible of change."In
these sentences, the principle of natural selection is expressed with
full clarity and widely applied, and Darwin is certainly right when he
says of Matthew "He clearly saw the full implications of the principle
of natural selection." It is impossible to see how Butler can
discard this interpretation of Matthew's train of thought, and claim that the
Scottish writer has only represented the doctrines of Buffon and Erasmus Darwin. The principle of natural selection is there, although Matthew also added that this adaptive law does not exclude the influence of the will or
feeling on the design of the body.
Matthew just recognizes other factors of species transformation in addition to natural
selection, exactly like Darwin did, on whose scope further research had to
decide. "to investigate," he says, "how much variation
is modified by the mind or nervous sensation of the parents,
or of the living thing itself during its progress to maturity; how far
it depends upon external circumstance, and how far on the will, irritability and muscular exertion, is open to examination and
experiment. In the first place,
we ought to investigate its dependency upon the preceding links of the particular chain of life, variety being often merely types or approximations of
former parentage; thence the variation of the family, as well as of the individual, must be embraced by our experiments." That is, Matthew already advocated the most modern direction of the development theory, the experimental.In the further course of his argument, he stressed that the continuation of the family type is both physical and mental, and is evidenced by many of the dispositions or instincts of the different human races. He regarded these native or inherited ideas or habits, that prevail especially in insects, as an "abiding memory" and believed to solve a lot of the mystery of instinct and the foreknowledge that these animals have of what is necessary, in order to complete their round of life, byreducing the instincts to knowledge, or impressions, and habits, acquired by a long experience. So he explains, here, the instincts according to Lamarck's principle; that he also subjects them to natural selection, however, is clear from his earlier statements.In discussing the instincts of insects, Matthew also touches on the problem of individuality. He finds it difficult to determine the specific points, in some insects, when each individuality begins with the different stages of egg, larva, pupa, or whether much consciousness of individuality exists.The epilogue concludes with a reflection on the imbalance of nature introduced by humans. They have in the present age attained a mastery of the material world and a successful power of multiplication, which makes it likely that the whole surface of the earth will soon be overrun by this engrossing anomaly, to the annihilation of every wonderful and beautiful variety of animated existence, that does not administer the human needs.It is admirable how many problems are touched in Matthew's book. However, only the attempt of a comprehensive application of the
principle of selection on the whole organic nature is fundamentally new. All the other ideas of Matthew had already been expressed by earlier thinkers. Even the principle of natural selection as such had already been pronounced by Wells and Prichard, but they applied it to the races of man only. In comparison with this very limited application, Matthew's hypothesis seems to be a new thought. We can therefore call the Scottish landowner the
first, who recognized natural selection as a general principle of
nature, without scruple. But
he does not seem to have considered this principle to be as important for
biological science, as Darwin later adjudged it, otherwise he would
not have published his ideas in the appendix to a work on naval timber. But
even if he had published this idea, in the existing form, in a separate
document, it would have had as little influence on the science, as had the
short treatises that Wallace and Darwin published in 1858 on the theory of natural
selection in the Journal of the Linnaean Society. Because,
as Butler rightly remarks, the same reproach must be made against Matthew's abstract of
the theory of evolution as to Erasmus Darwin's view of
this theory, that it was in fact too short. "It may be true," says Butler, "that brevity is the the soul of the wit, but the
leaders of science will generally succeed in burking new-born wit, unless the brevity of its soul is found compatible with a body of some bulk."Darwin first gave the body to the soul of the theory of natural selection. The ingenious way in which he related the facts of almost all biological disciplines in terms of the selection idea into an organic whole, is his very own merit, that defies all other priority claims.

2 comments:

Dr Dagg to achieve something you need to make an original discovery of your own rather than simply parrot the words of others and cherry-step away so as to miss the significant uncomfortable facts that disconfirm your attempts at historical scholarship.

Might I suggest you try to confront the actual independently verifiable fact that routes for knowledge contamination between Matthew's prior publication of the full conception of macroevolution by natural selection (according to the world's leading evolutionary biologists) - and you are not in their number at all for palpably obvious reasons - and Darwin and Wallace and their influencers and their influencer's influencers.

That new and significant discovery is in a peer reviewed science journal. No amount of fussy fact mangling can delete it. It is here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

Thanks Joachim D. for taking the time to translate May's 1912 review of Matthew for us. This review was the inspiration for Calman's 1912 review, but it is longer and has a distinct point of view. The last paragraph is perhaps the most significant. According to May, "We can therefore call the Scottish landowner the first, who recognized natural selection as a general principle of nature, without scruple", but May considers his exposition was too brief to be noticed. I am also quite taken with May's quote from Radl at the beginning: "The historian must not close his eyes to this fact; he must seek the truth not only to the throne of public recognition, but wherever people think". In other words, Matthew must not be disregarded just because he is obscure.